Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next, the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservations/rebuttals. Qualifiers indicate how much force the argument holds. The book mentions that phrases “such as Certainly, possible, probably, for the most part, usually or always" are typically used (55). Reservation/rebuttals are counters to the claim proposed. All of these terms fit together into a thorough breakdown of an argument. The authors also mention that each argument does not require all of the parts to gain adherence.Personally, I found the backing to be most interesting in this model because I believe that concrete evidence is the most persuasive in any argument. For instance, we can argue that Apple laptops are more desirable than Windows laptops just based on the grounds of personal preference. However, when we start to provide backing in the form of sales statistics the argument becomes much more persuasive and likely to gain adherence.
There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
I feel like our blog posts were very similar. I also broke down and defined each of the elements of the Toulmin Model, and all of my interpretations were pretty similar.
ReplyDeleteThere were, however, a couple little spots that made me stop to think for a second. First, when you were discussing the "warrant," I would have gone a bit further to explain that the warrant can clarify underlying societal assumptions, or truths for lack of a better term. It often holds the, usually unspoken in the argument, worldviews it is assumed the audience of the argument would relate to.
I'd also add, for qualifiers, that it can show how confident the speaker is in the argument, and how much they are willing to take responsibility if the audience follows the idea or action their argument presents.
Finally, I found it interesting how you seemed to view backing as the only solid source of support, while grounds were more of a personal preference. In my interpretation, I thought that grounds could be solid information and go beyond personal preference, but backing could make that even stronger. For example, a ground could be a statistic, and the backing could be a scholarly source that statistic comes from. Maybe I'm incorrect; I'm not sure after reading your interpretation.
Although I may have elaborated on some aspects and/or interpreted a few things differently, I think that you were correct and thorough in the information you presented in your blog post. :)